A letter from the superintendent and the school board president, sent out two hours before a candidate forum, was the latest in a series of unfair tactics that have marked the campaign.
Since this editorial is controversial and not everyone can be expected to agree with it, I am going to put some boilerplate comments here which I will refer to as questions come up. The reasons I believe it is clear that the "misinformation" the Walker/Teague letter referred to came from the Samuels/Pollak interview with the Chronicle are based on four factors:
1. The content of the letter itself, which refers to questions of the responsiveness of the district to concerns raised by parents, issues raised in the campaign by Samuels and Pollak.
2. The overall context of the campaign as laid out in detail in the editorial.
3. The widespread and immediate assumption in the community that the letter did, in fact, refer to the Chronicle interview.
4. The failure of Walker and Teague to respond to the Chronicle's queries about the letter. Those queries specifically asked the two of them to confirm or deny that the letter was referring to the Chronicle interview, and they were given all day and evening yesterday to respond. They did not.
If, as we feel confident, the letter indeed referred to that interview, or to any other statements that Samuels and Pollak had made, it was unethical for the reasons explained in the editorial.
Anna Teague is entitled to whatever opinion she wants. However her message was addressing issues that have come up as part of an election campaign. New York State ethics laws prevent the use of state resources for campaigning or influencing elections. As an elected official, her use of ParentSquare and any other district maintained computer system or email list to send this message is a clear violation of ethics law and she should resign. https://ethics.ny.gov/political-activity
Agreed. And as someone with a law degree (I don't say "lawyer" because you have to be a member of the bar in order to call yourself that), she should know the implications of ethical boundaries and the execution thereof.
Exactly. I was surprised that, given her law degree, she still co-signed that letter. That either means she’s not competent or she’s accustomed to a lack of accountability and enforcement of policies. The latter seems to be a habitual practice in our district—one that two women running for the Board of Education, Allison and Leslie, are committed to addressing.
I believe it’s more than just being accustomed to those things. From interacting with her on a one-on-one level, I believe that it comes from a lack of due regard for the concepts of accountability and personal integrity.
It is very frustrating, infuriating, and downright laughable to see the almost childlike tantrums that are thrown by adults just because someone is running against their chosen candidates. This reminds me of certain people in power who were reportedly upset that someone dared open another coffee shop (Matters Coffee) in our village. Bizarro World as progressives are teaming up to plant negative seeds and labeling
Allison & Leslie as MAGA! Have they no shame? Just wait until Pugh and company are challenged in November. You’ll see the same tactics.
There are many who believe it is a conflict of interest for Ana Teague to be president of the school board AND one of the most powerful admins of a community Facebook group with 2000 members. The concern is whether anyone can be truly free to speak their minds about school district issues under such circumstances, especially since people do get kicked off that group for speech that does not actually violate the rules. As an example, The Croton Point has an explicit and stated policy that no one can post an article in The Croton Chronicle in the group. That’s pretty weird given that the Chronicle breaks a lot of stories about what goes on in Croton and features a lot of Guest Editorials by Croton people.
It’s also very odd considering there are written communications between Board Members actively contemplating whether the Chronicle constitutes “journalism.”
Yes, that is true, I received them via FOIL some months back. Board member Neal Haber, who is an attorney, did some research on the subject and found out that judicial precedents do not allow a government body to decide who is a journalist or what publications are “real” journalism. I had an email exchange with Ana Teague about that subject as well and she retracted some earlier statements she had made to me that the Chronicle was not real journalism. Nevertheless she continues to question whether it is on The Croton Point—where I am not allowed to engage on the subject—and I believe privately as well. Some also question whether I am a journalist, or flat out assert that I am not. I think 47 continuous years as a working journalist plus teaching the subject for six years at NYU and a year each at BU and CCNY qualifies me, but hey, what do I know?
I must live in la-la land. Where has the general public been told about the anti-semetic attacks. I haven't seen anything in the Police blotter and if we are not aware of how widespread these attacks are in our Village a lot of us are in the dark about what incidents are being referred too. There would be more public outcry to stop these attacks if we knew.
I don’t want to speak for the parents who have been involved in this but if you read the Chronicle’s interview with Allison Samuels and Leslie Pollak, Allison describes two such incidents. They also discuss what they felt was a lack of serious response from the district. Not all such incidents end up involving the police. (The Chronicle also, quite some time back, reported on incidents of swastika images, please search “swastika” in the archives for that.)
You know now, and we appreciate your allyship in speaking out against hate. Many families are scared to report it or speak publicly and it has been ignored or buried by the people in a position of power. More pressure to address the problems from the whole community is very welcome and hopefully will lead to positive outcomes for kids in the district.
Does anyone know where to find records of incident reports or how they’ve been handled by the schools?
Good question Anon that is what I was wondering myself. I am just sticking with our Village because what is happening in other parts of our County and Country are horrible. Do we have a serious problem here or is it a matter of educating the rest of us on how to treat our Jewish neighbors.
We do have a serious problem here, rooted in a fundamental lack of respect for a particular group within our community, marginalizing them strictly because of their religion. That serious problem is then exacerbated by the district's lack of consideration when the marginalized make their reports. It's easier for the district to bury their heads in the sand and do nothing than it is for them to actually abide by their trite phraseology of "hate has no home here."
I've removed a comment that violated the policy against personal attacks. Please keep any criticisms of district officials focused on their behavior in their official or professional capacities. We have Facebook groups where the comments policies are more permissive.
I’ve been reading your posts around this and I want to clear an interpretation of a statement you keep adding to your articles. The clergy, of which I am one of them, did NOT endorse any candidates. That is your interpretation and I believe you should own it as your interpretation. The statement clearly reads, we do not endorse any candidate. It was written that way on purpose because we are not endorsing any candidate. We’ve never discussed who we are voting for in the school board elections and have never endorsed any candidate in any local elections, so why would we start now? We’ve been accused of endorsing candidates, but with most of us having Masters degrees or above and writing something weekly, we are pretty careful about wording. If you watch some of my sermons before the presidential election, for example, you will hear me say an incredibly similar statement about not endorsing any candidate, doing necessary research, but going out to vote. We are not endorsing any candidates, that interpretation is being read into a statement that clearly reads another way.
One other clarifications I feel I need to make is in one of your comments. You wrote you are not aware of the clergy making similar statements. For 3 years the Croton clergy been talking about the rise of antisemitism in Croton and the need to support our Jewish siblings, especially since they’ve been threatened numerous times. We had a forum at the Synagogue with a SUNY professor on antisemitism where we asked public officials to create a statement, the last MLK Jr presentation we held was on antisemitism where we asked for public officials to create a definition, if you search my church’s Facebook page you will find numerous statements about antisemitism and the importance of caring for our Jewish and Palestinian siblings, we had a community zoom, I was present for the service following the October kidnapping, and the clergy wrote a statement on behalf of the Village and at the request of the trustees that was signed by trustees and clergy alike. To say we haven’t made similar statements is exactly why we keep writing them because no one is acting on behalf of our Jewish siblings, who keep getting threats. It is long overdue.
I will end with my friendship with Rabbi Jaech for the last 7 years and the difficulties she has had as antisemitic attacks have increased. I’ve been criticized by one of the editorials in the Gazette for writing about my friendship and why I am an advocate for stopping antisemitism while calling for a universal definition of antisemitism in Croton. She has been my personal religious advisor as well and I will miss her presence in the community as she leaves us in June. It is a shame that she has to leave following a statement that has been similar to ones we’ve written for years, but was determined to be controversial this year. Calls to combat antisemitism have been going on for years and I am seeing why the work isn’t done. We should be celebrating Rabbi Jaech for all the work she has done for this community.
Rev Johnson, thanks for your comment. With all due respect, I believe the last paragraph of the letter was a tacit (or subtle, if you like) endorsement of the candidates who had raised the issue of antisemitism, and I stand by that statement. It was also interpreted that way by many others. The letter was written by Cantor Fogelman and not all of you as a body, according to what I have been told. On the issue of not raising the question of antisemitism, I think there is a misunderstanding. That does not refer to the clergy, but to the school district. As for Rabbi Jaech, I had the pleasure of doing a lengthy interview with her for the Chronicle last year, and I admire her greatly even though we have disagreements about certain issues (even though we share Jewish heritage.)
Here is exactly what we said about the last paragraph of your letter to the Gazette:
“ We think that many in our community will interpret this final statement as a non-endorsement endorsement of Allison Samuels and Leslie Pollak, who have been very active in the fight against antisemitism in our schools and whose organization, PASA, is in favor of the IHRA definition.”
This is in fact correct. Many in the community have in fact interpreted it exactly that way.
Thank you for the engagement. You have written about false statements and the need for decorum in political engagement and then made a false statement. This is the only reason why I interacted with your piece. As one of the signees, I will state your interpretation is incorrect. You are free to stand by it, but you would still be incorrect. We and I do not endorse any candidates. Just because “many others” say it too makes it no less correct. The use of “many others” is usually a tactic used by media when they want to emphasize a point without any real support. I can easily write, many others didn’t see it as an endorsement and I would be correct too. Again, as one of the signees, your interpretation is wrong and I am implicitly stating I am not endorsing any candidate and the intent to do so wasn’t present, so any other interpretation is incorrect, but you are free to stand by your incorrectness all you want. I just wouldn’t write about rumors and lies in a school board election and then perpetuate a lie, but that is just me.
Cantor Fogelman is the main author, but everyone who signed had editorial power. That is how joint statements generally work. We worked on it for about 3 or 4 weeks. I do notice how the other rabbis and cantors, who also were signees, are being left out of the conversation. They would have zero stake in Croton’s school board elections which is why we stated, we don’t endorse any candidates.
Thank you. Reporting on a village such as ours with so many conflicts, differences of opinion, egos, and nuances is a thankless job. I stand by what I wrote.
As a person of moral conscience, you should reflect on the damage the IHRA definition of antisemitism does to freedom of speech regarding Israel and why so many people, including its author, oppose its adoption as government policy. There are several letters in the Gazette explaining this.
You need to read the Chronicle more often because we did an entire article about that. I believe that it appeared before all the letters in the gazette.
I did read that, but there was additional information in the Gazette letters. As of this point, three letters in the Gazette have opposed the IHRA definition, as did discussion on the Croton Point, which predated your article. But no one is looking to be first, only to be heard.
I mentioned it because you’re in a comments space for the Chronicle. But I would add that while I agree with the criticisms of the IHRA definition, I think there is also a tendency among many on the liberal/left in Croton to be self righteous and holier than thou in their political expression; and that many still do not realize the role that attitude played in giving us Trump. The Croton Point is certainly a cauldron of that kind of problem.
I appreciated receiving the letter and fail to see why it can be viewed as unfair. It merely restates what the intention and practice are of the school district. It makes me wonder what the real motive is behind the harsh criticism of the district.
All I can say is that I laid out clearly what the problem with the letter was and how it was directly linked to the election campaign. I am not sure if you are wondering about the Chronicle’s motivation in criticizing the letter or the criticisms of others, but the ethical issues raised by the letter are crystal clear and actually a classic example of unethical campaigning. I would add that the tribalism I describe in the editorial is so pronounced at this point that it has created ethical blinders that make it more difficult for even people of good will to see why this is not okay.
Michael, thank you for helping us all follow the developments of this campaign; your work is comprehensive and helpful. And -- I'm also confused as to why the letter was remotely unethical, and why you're choosing to craft an editorial around it. They give an update and state what they've done, which is their right. They do call out "misinformation," but they don't mention the campaign, nor anyone by name. The only connection between this letter and any particular candidate is through your reporting, as far as I can tell. Also -- is there a link to the Gazette editorial? Thanks
Thanks for your comment. While the letter does not identify the source of the "misinformation," it was widely perceived by many in the community to refer to statements that the candidates had made, especially since it referred to "social media and other online platforms, as recently as today." The term "other online platforms" was a good description of the Chronicle interview with Samuels and Pollak, as was the description of the "misinformation" itself, and was interpreted that way by many. Nevertheless beginning early yesterday morning I asked both Stephen Walker and Ana Teague to confirm or deny that they were referring to the Chronicle interview, and I gave them all day yesterday to respond--they did not. But it is clear that their comments about misinformation were related to statements made during the campaign, which should be clear from the context. It is that context that also makes the letter unethical, as I explained in detail in the story. I hope that is helpful. Again, if we had it wrong, all Teague and Walker had to do was tell us that, but they declined to do so. I think any other conclusion would be naive. But readers here are also free to ask school district officials what they were referring to, keeping in mind that what they characterized as "misinformation" closely fit what the two candidates have been saying about school district responsiveness.
Sorry I did not answer about the Gazette editorial. That publication is only in print and not online, so unfortunately there is no link that I am aware of. It's possible that the Croton Historical Society can provide a pdf version of the Gazette which I believe they receive under a special arrangement with the editor/publisher. Perhaps the Gazette editor would also supply it upon request, not sure about that.
Elections should be met with integrity and if officials are using their power to influence them, it’s a problem.
Their letter appeared in today’s Gazette, which means it was written several days ago. Their decision to update it after Allison and Leslie’s critical interview in the Chronicle and send on Parent Square two hours before the forum sure seems suspect.
The letter had to have been sent to The Gazette no later than around Weds morning to have a chance of being published in the Gazette. The reference to an online post on Weds at 5 pm, which as you say was added to the letter, was in obvious response to the interview posted that morning, as I have explained in a comment on this post.
Yes, I am agreeing with you, but some readers may not have known about the Gazette, which is why I shared the timing seems suspect and not just a coincidence.
The letter in the Gazette referred to “misinformation” in a vague way, but since we are in the middle of a sharp election campaign very likely referred to statements by or in support of election candidates. When they added the additional reference to “online platforms” and “as recently as today,” it was a dead giveaway that they had seen the interview in the Chronicle that morning, read the criticisms made by Allison and Leslie about lack of response to parents, and were responding directly to it. But again, I gave them all day Thursday to correct that understanding if it was not right, and they did not do so.
"Their letter appeared in today’s Gazette, which means it was written several days ago. Their decision to update it after Allison and Leslie’s critical interview in the Chronicle and send on Parent Square two hours before the forum sure seems suspect." Bingo.
Since this editorial is controversial and not everyone can be expected to agree with it, I am going to put some boilerplate comments here which I will refer to as questions come up. The reasons I believe it is clear that the "misinformation" the Walker/Teague letter referred to came from the Samuels/Pollak interview with the Chronicle are based on four factors:
1. The content of the letter itself, which refers to questions of the responsiveness of the district to concerns raised by parents, issues raised in the campaign by Samuels and Pollak.
2. The overall context of the campaign as laid out in detail in the editorial.
3. The widespread and immediate assumption in the community that the letter did, in fact, refer to the Chronicle interview.
4. The failure of Walker and Teague to respond to the Chronicle's queries about the letter. Those queries specifically asked the two of them to confirm or deny that the letter was referring to the Chronicle interview, and they were given all day and evening yesterday to respond. They did not.
If, as we feel confident, the letter indeed referred to that interview, or to any other statements that Samuels and Pollak had made, it was unethical for the reasons explained in the editorial.
I should point out that I asked Teague and Walker to comment on the letter and the overall situation, but they declined to do so.
Anna Teague is entitled to whatever opinion she wants. However her message was addressing issues that have come up as part of an election campaign. New York State ethics laws prevent the use of state resources for campaigning or influencing elections. As an elected official, her use of ParentSquare and any other district maintained computer system or email list to send this message is a clear violation of ethics law and she should resign. https://ethics.ny.gov/political-activity
Thank you for this very clear statement of the issues.
Agreed. And as someone with a law degree (I don't say "lawyer" because you have to be a member of the bar in order to call yourself that), she should know the implications of ethical boundaries and the execution thereof.
Exactly. I was surprised that, given her law degree, she still co-signed that letter. That either means she’s not competent or she’s accustomed to a lack of accountability and enforcement of policies. The latter seems to be a habitual practice in our district—one that two women running for the Board of Education, Allison and Leslie, are committed to addressing.
I believe it’s more than just being accustomed to those things. From interacting with her on a one-on-one level, I believe that it comes from a lack of due regard for the concepts of accountability and personal integrity.
It is very frustrating, infuriating, and downright laughable to see the almost childlike tantrums that are thrown by adults just because someone is running against their chosen candidates. This reminds me of certain people in power who were reportedly upset that someone dared open another coffee shop (Matters Coffee) in our village. Bizarro World as progressives are teaming up to plant negative seeds and labeling
Allison & Leslie as MAGA! Have they no shame? Just wait until Pugh and company are challenged in November. You’ll see the same tactics.
Who do you think gave the playbook for the current tactics that we're seeing play out in front of us?
The playbook was used against Croton United as well, so maybe the same people?
Exactly. Just take a look at who’s running for school board, who runs the village board, and who’s a member of The Croton Point.
There are many who believe it is a conflict of interest for Ana Teague to be president of the school board AND one of the most powerful admins of a community Facebook group with 2000 members. The concern is whether anyone can be truly free to speak their minds about school district issues under such circumstances, especially since people do get kicked off that group for speech that does not actually violate the rules. As an example, The Croton Point has an explicit and stated policy that no one can post an article in The Croton Chronicle in the group. That’s pretty weird given that the Chronicle breaks a lot of stories about what goes on in Croton and features a lot of Guest Editorials by Croton people.
It’s also very odd considering there are written communications between Board Members actively contemplating whether the Chronicle constitutes “journalism.”
Yes, that is true, I received them via FOIL some months back. Board member Neal Haber, who is an attorney, did some research on the subject and found out that judicial precedents do not allow a government body to decide who is a journalist or what publications are “real” journalism. I had an email exchange with Ana Teague about that subject as well and she retracted some earlier statements she had made to me that the Chronicle was not real journalism. Nevertheless she continues to question whether it is on The Croton Point—where I am not allowed to engage on the subject—and I believe privately as well. Some also question whether I am a journalist, or flat out assert that I am not. I think 47 continuous years as a working journalist plus teaching the subject for six years at NYU and a year each at BU and CCNY qualifies me, but hey, what do I know?
I must live in la-la land. Where has the general public been told about the anti-semetic attacks. I haven't seen anything in the Police blotter and if we are not aware of how widespread these attacks are in our Village a lot of us are in the dark about what incidents are being referred too. There would be more public outcry to stop these attacks if we knew.
I don’t want to speak for the parents who have been involved in this but if you read the Chronicle’s interview with Allison Samuels and Leslie Pollak, Allison describes two such incidents. They also discuss what they felt was a lack of serious response from the district. Not all such incidents end up involving the police. (The Chronicle also, quite some time back, reported on incidents of swastika images, please search “swastika” in the archives for that.)
You know now, and we appreciate your allyship in speaking out against hate. Many families are scared to report it or speak publicly and it has been ignored or buried by the people in a position of power. More pressure to address the problems from the whole community is very welcome and hopefully will lead to positive outcomes for kids in the district.
Does anyone know where to find records of incident reports or how they’ve been handled by the schools?
the only way to do it is to file a FOIL request. But for many acts of bullying the official investigations don't even start
Good question Anon that is what I was wondering myself. I am just sticking with our Village because what is happening in other parts of our County and Country are horrible. Do we have a serious problem here or is it a matter of educating the rest of us on how to treat our Jewish neighbors.
We do have a serious problem here, rooted in a fundamental lack of respect for a particular group within our community, marginalizing them strictly because of their religion. That serious problem is then exacerbated by the district's lack of consideration when the marginalized make their reports. It's easier for the district to bury their heads in the sand and do nothing than it is for them to actually abide by their trite phraseology of "hate has no home here."
I've removed a comment that violated the policy against personal attacks. Please keep any criticisms of district officials focused on their behavior in their official or professional capacities. We have Facebook groups where the comments policies are more permissive.
Good day Mr Balter,
I’ve been reading your posts around this and I want to clear an interpretation of a statement you keep adding to your articles. The clergy, of which I am one of them, did NOT endorse any candidates. That is your interpretation and I believe you should own it as your interpretation. The statement clearly reads, we do not endorse any candidate. It was written that way on purpose because we are not endorsing any candidate. We’ve never discussed who we are voting for in the school board elections and have never endorsed any candidate in any local elections, so why would we start now? We’ve been accused of endorsing candidates, but with most of us having Masters degrees or above and writing something weekly, we are pretty careful about wording. If you watch some of my sermons before the presidential election, for example, you will hear me say an incredibly similar statement about not endorsing any candidate, doing necessary research, but going out to vote. We are not endorsing any candidates, that interpretation is being read into a statement that clearly reads another way.
One other clarifications I feel I need to make is in one of your comments. You wrote you are not aware of the clergy making similar statements. For 3 years the Croton clergy been talking about the rise of antisemitism in Croton and the need to support our Jewish siblings, especially since they’ve been threatened numerous times. We had a forum at the Synagogue with a SUNY professor on antisemitism where we asked public officials to create a statement, the last MLK Jr presentation we held was on antisemitism where we asked for public officials to create a definition, if you search my church’s Facebook page you will find numerous statements about antisemitism and the importance of caring for our Jewish and Palestinian siblings, we had a community zoom, I was present for the service following the October kidnapping, and the clergy wrote a statement on behalf of the Village and at the request of the trustees that was signed by trustees and clergy alike. To say we haven’t made similar statements is exactly why we keep writing them because no one is acting on behalf of our Jewish siblings, who keep getting threats. It is long overdue.
I will end with my friendship with Rabbi Jaech for the last 7 years and the difficulties she has had as antisemitic attacks have increased. I’ve been criticized by one of the editorials in the Gazette for writing about my friendship and why I am an advocate for stopping antisemitism while calling for a universal definition of antisemitism in Croton. She has been my personal religious advisor as well and I will miss her presence in the community as she leaves us in June. It is a shame that she has to leave following a statement that has been similar to ones we’ve written for years, but was determined to be controversial this year. Calls to combat antisemitism have been going on for years and I am seeing why the work isn’t done. We should be celebrating Rabbi Jaech for all the work she has done for this community.
Rev Johnson, thanks for your comment. With all due respect, I believe the last paragraph of the letter was a tacit (or subtle, if you like) endorsement of the candidates who had raised the issue of antisemitism, and I stand by that statement. It was also interpreted that way by many others. The letter was written by Cantor Fogelman and not all of you as a body, according to what I have been told. On the issue of not raising the question of antisemitism, I think there is a misunderstanding. That does not refer to the clergy, but to the school district. As for Rabbi Jaech, I had the pleasure of doing a lengthy interview with her for the Chronicle last year, and I admire her greatly even though we have disagreements about certain issues (even though we share Jewish heritage.)
Here is exactly what we said about the last paragraph of your letter to the Gazette:
“ We think that many in our community will interpret this final statement as a non-endorsement endorsement of Allison Samuels and Leslie Pollak, who have been very active in the fight against antisemitism in our schools and whose organization, PASA, is in favor of the IHRA definition.”
This is in fact correct. Many in the community have in fact interpreted it exactly that way.
Thank you for the engagement. You have written about false statements and the need for decorum in political engagement and then made a false statement. This is the only reason why I interacted with your piece. As one of the signees, I will state your interpretation is incorrect. You are free to stand by it, but you would still be incorrect. We and I do not endorse any candidates. Just because “many others” say it too makes it no less correct. The use of “many others” is usually a tactic used by media when they want to emphasize a point without any real support. I can easily write, many others didn’t see it as an endorsement and I would be correct too. Again, as one of the signees, your interpretation is wrong and I am implicitly stating I am not endorsing any candidate and the intent to do so wasn’t present, so any other interpretation is incorrect, but you are free to stand by your incorrectness all you want. I just wouldn’t write about rumors and lies in a school board election and then perpetuate a lie, but that is just me.
Cantor Fogelman is the main author, but everyone who signed had editorial power. That is how joint statements generally work. We worked on it for about 3 or 4 weeks. I do notice how the other rabbis and cantors, who also were signees, are being left out of the conversation. They would have zero stake in Croton’s school board elections which is why we stated, we don’t endorse any candidates.
Thank you. Reporting on a village such as ours with so many conflicts, differences of opinion, egos, and nuances is a thankless job. I stand by what I wrote.
As a person of moral conscience, you should reflect on the damage the IHRA definition of antisemitism does to freedom of speech regarding Israel and why so many people, including its author, oppose its adoption as government policy. There are several letters in the Gazette explaining this.
You need to read the Chronicle more often because we did an entire article about that. I believe that it appeared before all the letters in the gazette.
https://open.substack.com/pub/thecrotonchronicle/p/commentary-a-battle-over-how-to-define
I did read that, but there was additional information in the Gazette letters. As of this point, three letters in the Gazette have opposed the IHRA definition, as did discussion on the Croton Point, which predated your article. But no one is looking to be first, only to be heard.
I mentioned it because you’re in a comments space for the Chronicle. But I would add that while I agree with the criticisms of the IHRA definition, I think there is also a tendency among many on the liberal/left in Croton to be self righteous and holier than thou in their political expression; and that many still do not realize the role that attitude played in giving us Trump. The Croton Point is certainly a cauldron of that kind of problem.
I appreciated receiving the letter and fail to see why it can be viewed as unfair. It merely restates what the intention and practice are of the school district. It makes me wonder what the real motive is behind the harsh criticism of the district.
All I can say is that I laid out clearly what the problem with the letter was and how it was directly linked to the election campaign. I am not sure if you are wondering about the Chronicle’s motivation in criticizing the letter or the criticisms of others, but the ethical issues raised by the letter are crystal clear and actually a classic example of unethical campaigning. I would add that the tribalism I describe in the editorial is so pronounced at this point that it has created ethical blinders that make it more difficult for even people of good will to see why this is not okay.
Michael, thank you for helping us all follow the developments of this campaign; your work is comprehensive and helpful. And -- I'm also confused as to why the letter was remotely unethical, and why you're choosing to craft an editorial around it. They give an update and state what they've done, which is their right. They do call out "misinformation," but they don't mention the campaign, nor anyone by name. The only connection between this letter and any particular candidate is through your reporting, as far as I can tell. Also -- is there a link to the Gazette editorial? Thanks
Thanks for your comment. While the letter does not identify the source of the "misinformation," it was widely perceived by many in the community to refer to statements that the candidates had made, especially since it referred to "social media and other online platforms, as recently as today." The term "other online platforms" was a good description of the Chronicle interview with Samuels and Pollak, as was the description of the "misinformation" itself, and was interpreted that way by many. Nevertheless beginning early yesterday morning I asked both Stephen Walker and Ana Teague to confirm or deny that they were referring to the Chronicle interview, and I gave them all day yesterday to respond--they did not. But it is clear that their comments about misinformation were related to statements made during the campaign, which should be clear from the context. It is that context that also makes the letter unethical, as I explained in detail in the story. I hope that is helpful. Again, if we had it wrong, all Teague and Walker had to do was tell us that, but they declined to do so. I think any other conclusion would be naive. But readers here are also free to ask school district officials what they were referring to, keeping in mind that what they characterized as "misinformation" closely fit what the two candidates have been saying about school district responsiveness.
Sorry I did not answer about the Gazette editorial. That publication is only in print and not online, so unfortunately there is no link that I am aware of. It's possible that the Croton Historical Society can provide a pdf version of the Gazette which I believe they receive under a special arrangement with the editor/publisher. Perhaps the Gazette editor would also supply it upon request, not sure about that.
Elections should be met with integrity and if officials are using their power to influence them, it’s a problem.
Their letter appeared in today’s Gazette, which means it was written several days ago. Their decision to update it after Allison and Leslie’s critical interview in the Chronicle and send on Parent Square two hours before the forum sure seems suspect.
The letter had to have been sent to The Gazette no later than around Weds morning to have a chance of being published in the Gazette. The reference to an online post on Weds at 5 pm, which as you say was added to the letter, was in obvious response to the interview posted that morning, as I have explained in a comment on this post.
Yes, I am agreeing with you, but some readers may not have known about the Gazette, which is why I shared the timing seems suspect and not just a coincidence.
The letter in the Gazette referred to “misinformation” in a vague way, but since we are in the middle of a sharp election campaign very likely referred to statements by or in support of election candidates. When they added the additional reference to “online platforms” and “as recently as today,” it was a dead giveaway that they had seen the interview in the Chronicle that morning, read the criticisms made by Allison and Leslie about lack of response to parents, and were responding directly to it. But again, I gave them all day Thursday to correct that understanding if it was not right, and they did not do so.
"Their letter appeared in today’s Gazette, which means it was written several days ago. Their decision to update it after Allison and Leslie’s critical interview in the Chronicle and send on Parent Square two hours before the forum sure seems suspect." Bingo.